Seattlest Trivia: Last Night's Recap Will Be Delayed

We remember the winner: Equal Time for Chocolate Buddha. They won $110.

Second place: Another one of NAMBLA's wildly inappropriate names. They won $40.

Third place's name had something to do with the Mariners' season, and they won $10. Fourth place was The Fookin' As. They chose Marvel comics as a round topic for next week -- something we've always been tempted to do, what with growing up on John Byrne's Fantastic Four and Frank Miller's Daredevil, but never quite dared. Now we're prepared to comic-book-geek out.

What don't we remember? The scores, and the standings beyond fourth place. We don't usually remember the scores, actually, trusting our spreadsheet instead. And we faithfully mailed ourselves the spreadsheet -- but our spam filter thought we were spamming ourselves and we deleted our junk mail folder before figuring that out. We'll post a full lineup later tonight.

In the meantime, discuss: should maximum team size increase to 6 players? One team requested that, and it's certainly done at other pubs. Our first concern: it'll decrease the prize pool, since some groups now split into multiple teams to play. (Hence the request.) Strong opinions one way or the other? Let us know in the comments.

Looking for the questions? Allow us to plug our blog, Question Setter, where you'll find last night's Qs and As, along with questions going back weeks.

We host again next week. The week after that, gather for a very special trivia night when we bid farewell to Seattlest David.

UPDATE: Final standings are after the jump.

1) Equal Time for Chocolate Buddha, 70 points -- $110
2) NAMBLA's Joining the Babysitter's Club, 66 -- $40
3) Two Wins Down, 69 More to Go, 63 -- $10
4) The Fookin' As, 57
5) Paint the Town Brown, 55
6) We Got Nothin', 54
7) (tie) The Honeybees and The Story of My Fucking Life, 53
9) Something Shiny, 51
10) T-scam, 48
11) (tie) Binge Thinkers and Norm's Transplants, 46
13) (tie) Lava, The Castles of Ireland, and The Ted Kennedys, 40
16) Last Place, 20 -- swag!

Contact the author of this article or email tips@seattlest.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By James in Arts & Events on April 4, 2007 2:20 PM

Comments [rss]

mittens

I vote to share the love with that one extra special person--6 is a lovely number, don't be so miserly and stifling with your 5.

Thank you.

Husker Don't

Husker Don't vote for staying at 5. Its fun to split when we have more than 5.

PTrig

I am indifferent. However, a new team - The Ted Kennedys - do intend to be regulars. So, we will be taking up some of the space at the bar.

PTrig

I am indifferent. However, a new team - The Ted Kennedys - do intend to be regulars. So, we will be taking up some of the space at the bar.

Dom

Maybe we need to figure out a more democratic way of splitting our team. I agree, the crowded bar is a nuisance if you arrive close to game time. But it seems like people are bringing more than 5 to the table anyway and just splitting teams. So the only real downside to adding a player to the limit is the loss of some of the pot ante because there will be less splittage.

NAMBLA

NAMBLA votes for the limit of 5 to remain. We discussed the 6-person option, since we have 7 members... but decided that 5 is a good number. The bar is way too crowded on some nights, which is frustrating. Last night's amount of people was very nice (i.e., i could get to the bar and get served in a decent amount of time).

On the nights when we have more than 5 people, we frequently just split into two teams. Even though that leads to talent dilution, which subsequently takes us out of the running, we're cool with that. We then just end up competing against each other. But that's ok. When NAMBLA rubs up against itself... everybody wins. :)

James Callan

I totally get that. When I was playing the quiz, the OP's 5-person cap was occasionally annoying.

My concern is that people are already complaining that the bar is filled to capacity on trivia night, so I don't know that there's a lot of extra room for additional people regardless of team size.

Of course, it should be fun, and the only real reason our team limit is 5 (so far as I know) is that it was that way when we started, someone in the quiz night's prehistory having set it up that way. So if people would have more fun with 6-person teams and smaller cash prizes, I can swing with that.

Dom

Not surprisingly, I support the increase to 6-member teams. What if the per team fee increased as well to $6? It might not be enough to offset the gains when teams are forced to split, but it might mean more people decide to show up because there actually might be room on a team. That's been our problem, anyway; we have plenty of people who want to come but no one wants to show up and find out the team is already full.